Vatican astronomer likens creationism to superstition

[ricmat]

Since He would be totally honest, He would probably say that science isn’t about Me. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Science is objective. That means it is not at all interested in belief, only objective truth.

If religion were to operate according to the scientific method it would always and forever have to ask the question, does God exist and be willing, even eager to find proof that God does not exist.

That’s not good for religion, but it’s vital for science. Science must constantly question theories.

My original question was directed more at those who say let science be science and religion be religion. A total segregation.

I’m not asking anybody to try to prove God with science. I hear all these wonderful things about finding God’s beauty in nature (so long as we find it in evolution), but if I go further and say “How about we find evidence of God’s design in nature?” all heck breaks loose.

God certainly is truth. Objective truth. The last step to accepting that truth is an act of faith, but that doesn’t mean that science doesn’t have a role.

So, if we decide as you suggest above that we should not give science to God, because it’s not about him, then who should we give it to? Caesar? Ah, “the ruler of this world.” Gotcha.

 

[edwest2]

A group of men observe, experiment and collect information. That information is then presented to the world. Men decide what they want to do with it.

2 + 2 = 4. I can prove that by counting two objects and counting two more objects. I can then put them together and now count four objects.

I am unconvinced that gills just happened to mutate and select into lungs no matter how much time was involved. Biology is not the same as swapping out parts in a machine.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

I am unconvinced that gills just happened to mutate and select into lungs no matter how much time was involved. Biology is not the same as swapping out parts in a machine.

Gill arches really did become other structures. Meckel’s cartilage is the direct origin of the mandible.

 

[Riada]

It’s been a very long time since I felt comfortable at that kind of elementary level. Do your own basic education and then maybe we can talk. Peace.

Oh! Exalted one! Your wisdom shines like thousand stars illuminating the heavens. This poor, lowly Fundamentalist peasant comes before you as humble as he knows how, like an empty pitcher before your full fountain of knowledge! Actually I have a basic education and I’m going to adress you anyway.
Your problem is that you have no basic education. Logic is as foundational to science as metaphysics is. Clear definition is important to sound reasoning. Most evolutionists like you play fast and loose with definitions. They love to spout irrational statements like religion is based on faith but science is based on facts. All knowledge is based on faith. It is a fact it’s 72 degrees in this room. That is based on reading this themometer, which is based on my faith that the expansion and contraction of mercury correlates with the fluctuations of the temperature in this room, that the universe is governed by physical laws that have and will remain the same. Science came into being in the Western world because Christian theology had the unique idea that the universe was governed by physical laws established by God. Miracles were indeed possible because God was Sovereign over His creation. Whether you believe in God or not both views are equally metaphyical ideas, they are foundational and inescapable. Wake up! Do you think (despite the fact you know nothing about it) that logic is a valid tool for analysing data? Only if there is an intrinsic relationship between logical thinking and reality can logic have any authority. What no evolutionist can answer is why logic should have any validity. Rational intuition in the human mind arose by the happenstance (unexplained) process of evolution(according to them). It’s like an explosion in a boiler factory. So the mind works according to rational intuition, so what? There is no necessessary connection between this and the nature of reality. It’s sort of like Kantianism. Again, metaphysics underlies sound scientific thinking.

 

[Stephen_LB]

Science is not bound up with metaphysics. Theology does not define all of scientific research. Those claims are simply ridiculous.

Once you insert metaphysics or theology you force science to the sideline until the conversation comes back to objective truth. Philosophy of science is a distinct area of study, but it is not natural science. Same with theology. You theologians are pretty much in a class by yourselves.

Of course science uses logic, but not in the way that you describe. Theologians and philosophers approach logic as a primary subject. Science uses logic only as a way to discover objective truth.

And, at the moment you begin a theological excursion into science, science leaves the building. Science doesn’t care one whit about theology. Theology cares about science, as it should, but science does just fine without (name removed by moderator)ut from theology.

And I might further comment that both are much more satisfying when they can remain separate.

I don’t want to be unkind here, but you are rejecting a self evident truth. Logic is only useful if it reflects the real world, and the only way that can happen is if the logic of the mind has been set up to be in correspondence with it. Your position refutes itself. You can reason your way to truth only if there is somewhere to go. That is why theistic dualism is a prerequisite for all rationality. Someone had to create two realms, the thinking mechanism and the object of thought. Try as hard as you want, there is no way out of this. Frankly, I can’t imagine why you would want out of it.

Logic can be used by anyone for any reason; your restrictions are all arbitrary. Induction, deduction, abduction, inference to the best explanation—these are tools of the mind. What distinguishes science from everything else is the method. You begin with empirical observation, employ rigorous methods, isolate variable, test for reliability, and draw conclusions. Logic doesn’t change its texture just because it leaves the service of a philosopher and joins forces with a scientist.

True science is distinct from theology but it is not radically separated from it. That is why all the great scientists of the past insisted that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” If you disagree, you had better take up your case with them. Predictably, you are assuming what is called methodological naturalism. This is a recent development and it is an aberration. Until 15 years ago, no philosophy of science textbook used the term. Consult any history of the philosophy of science and you will find nothing about it. This formulation was designed specifically to put intelligent design into disrepute and for no other reason. You are arguing against logic, history, and science.

 

[drpmjhess]

Oh! Exalted one! Your wisdom shines like thousand stars illuminating the heavens. This poor, lowly Fundamentalist peasant comes before you as humble as he knows how, like an empty pitcher before your full fountain of knowledge!..Your problem is that you have no basic education.
.

Again with the ad hominem arguments to conceal the vacuity of your own position.

 

[Riada]

hess, thank you for proving you know nothing about logic. Ridiculing the ridiculous is not an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that Namesake lacks the necessary intellectual tools for the task he has undertaken is not either. Was John the Baptist making an ad hominem attack when he called Herod and his wife “Adulterers”? Perhaps you think he was a really bad guy and deserved to be beheaded?

 

[Namesake]

Again with the ad hominem arguments to conceal the vacuity of your own position.

You must quit wrestling with pigs…

 

[drpmjhess]

You must quit wrestling with pigs…

Thanks, Namesake – consider the porcine wrestling match over. I got suspicious about Riada’s signature “Dr. Robert O. Adair”; the only one I could find through Google has several doctorates from fictitious or unaccredited institutions. I may have the wrong person, but whatever the case may be, there is no potential for fruitful dialogue with him/her.

Petrus

 

[Stephen_LB]

You must quit wrestling with pigs…

I appreciate the fact that your fireworks with Adair provided a momentary diversion, but I wonder if I could persuade you to return to the issue of ID and science. I have pointed out that methodological naturalism, the position you are arguing for, has only been with us for about twenty years. Under the circumstances, it can hardly qualify as THE standard for science. You have not addressed that point.

When you refer to ID, you continue to allude to the supernatural and religion, but the design inference is not religion-based. Again, I am asking you to investigate the matter so that we can discuss it. If you need an explanation about how it works, I will be glad to perform that service. Meanwhile, it is not fair for you to insist that ID is not science when, excuse me, you have yet to learn what it is. You cannot get this information from anti-ID websites.

For the moment, I will leave the issue about the metaphysical foundations for science. I would have asked you to read, “The Metaphysical Foundations Of Modern Science,” by Burtt, but that would be asking a lot, inasmuch as you have a prior commitment to methodological naturalism and are unlikely to consider another point of view. I wish you would, however, because you would learn why all the great scientists of the past insisted that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” So, I will put this point aside for now and ask you to address the first two points.

 

[Stephen_LB]

---

Stephen, it is culturally important to know what ID proponents mean by “design inference” and “complex specified information” and “irreducible complexity,” just as it is culturally important to know what astrologers mean by the terms "“as above, so below” and “natal signs” and “houses of the horoscope.” But it is not important for scientists to study intelligent design theory in order for them to carry out their scientific research.

-----Please note that I distinguish between what is culturally important and what is scientifically important. Scientifically, the terms employed by ID proponents have no valence, no utility, no predictive value, no fertility for further discoveries. ID is a science stopper, saying, “God did it; go thou no further.”

I----- believe it is important culturally for everyone to understand basic terms of different belief systems. In order to be a responsible party to discussion, Richard Dawkins should be able to articulate what “transubstantiation” means, even though it holds no reality for him personally.

Petrus

Well, Petrus, if I agree with you that it is “culturally important” to learn something about intelligent design, will you then investigate the matter sufficiently to dialogue about it. At the most basic level, will you describe the process of a design inference and explain in explicit terms why you believe that it is not a scientific methodology. I explained earlier that forensic science uses the same methodology, but you ignored the point. If you are curious enough to ask me about it, I will provide the description myself. I am not trying to trap you. I am trying to stimulate honest dialogue that goes beyond evasive word shuffling.

Up to this point, you have provided no evidence that you can differentiate between creation science and intelligent design. We both know that the former does not qualify as science, inasmuch as it rests on theological presuppositions. There! I have even given you a hint. Why not take it up from there and finish the distinction. I know that you can do it. Transcend the intellectual mediocrity of Judge John Jones and take hold of the subject matter.

You will notice how willingly I accommodated your requests. You asked for a few ID predictions and I provided them. Were you surprised to know that ID does make predictions? If you want more, just ask. Meanwhile, make your case about ID and science, focusing, if you would be so kind, on the process itself.

 

[drpmjhess]

ID predicted that we could not build life from scratch. So it has been. It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for any living system That is becaue it was designed.

ID predicted that Darwinists would find no evolutionary pathway to complexity. So it has been. Neither the biochemical nor replicative pathways have been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.
.

Stephen, this is quite false. See pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/03/ooo-pretty-pict.html

 

[drpmjhess]

When you refer to ID, you continue to allude to the supernatural and religion, but the design inference is not religion-based. Again, I am asking you to investigate the matter so that we can discuss it. If you need an explanation about how it works, I will be glad to perform that service. Meanwhile, it is not fair for you to insist that ID is not science when, excuse me, you have yet to learn what it is. You cannot get this information from anti-ID websites. .

Stephen, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree at this point. I’ve studied E. A. Burtt in my doctoral training, and he’s got some goo tings to say. But I’m not a scientist; my job is to research and teach about the many interesting theological implications of evolution. While I don’t work with research science directly, I do work with scientists on a daily basis, none of whom even give a second thought to “Intelligent Design” in their work, because it is irrelevant to the practice of science.

I have six priest friends who are research scientists: four Jesuit cosmologist-astronomers, a Jesuit botanist, and a SVD chemist. When I ask them about ID they politely dismiss it as “pseudo-science.” Of course, as priests they presume the intelligibility of the cosmos, and they find that the scientific explanation of the universe and of life on earth enriches their faith tremendously. But they simply find no use for ID and its presuppositions in their actual practice of science.

Petrus

 

[Riada]

Again with the ad hominem arguments to conceal the vacuity of your own position.

Hess, how about "the vacuity of your position? You are the one engaging in an ad hominem attack. You do not know what the term means. I dare you to answer the question: “Was John the Baptist guilty of making an ad hominem attack?” Since you have not studied logic and know next to nothing about it, you can’t handle this! Furthermore you are incapable of handling the arguments I have presented, so you resort to “ad hominem arguments to conceal the vacuity of YOUR position.” I don’t know what god you are a theologian about, but it is not the God of the the Bible nor the God of Roman Catholic orthodoxy.

 

[Stephen_LB]

Stephen, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree at this point. I’ve studied E. A. Burtt in my doctoral training, and he’s got some goo tings to say. But I’m not a scientist; my job is to research and teach about the many interesting theological implications of evolution. While I don’t work with research science directly, I do work with scientists on a daily basis, none of whom even give a second thought to “Intelligent Design” in their work, because it is irrelevant to the practice of science.

I have six priest friends who are research scientists: four Jesuit cosmologist-astronomers, a Jesuit botanist, and a SVD chemist. When I ask them about ID they politely dismiss it as “pseudo-science.” Of course, as priests they presume the intelligibility of the cosmos, and they find that the scientific explanation of the universe and of life on earth enriches their faith tremendously. But they simply find no use for ID and its presuppositions in their actual practice of science.

Petrus

II can only reiterate that in order to grasp the subject matter, it is necessary to consult those who are qualified to comment on it. In an admirably subtle way, you have changed the subject from ID as legitimate science to ID as useful science. No one knows how useful ID is going to be, but all knowledgeable people know that it is science. Your dedication to evolution is duly noted. But, as I pointed out earlier, evolutionary theory is not needed for any scientific endeavor at all. If the theory was abandoned tomorrow, scientific research would continue on as sleek as ever. Indeed, it would improve.

I harp on this matter of the ID process, because everything turns on it. In all honesty, you don’t seem willing to dialogue on the subject. You deflect and dismiss arguments, but you do not confront them. This is very disappointing coming from an educator. Intellectual curiosity alone should compel you to get at the bottom of this. The fact that you do not even bother to investigate a subject that you presume to critique is, at best, curious. So far, your appeal to authority is your only argument. Not only is that a bad argument, but your authorities are not authoritative.

 

[Riada]

Thanks, Namesake – consider the porcine wrestling match over. I got suspicious about Riada’s signature “Dr. Robert O. Adair”; the only one I could find through Google has several doctorates from fictitious or unaccredited institutions. I may have the wrong person, but whatever the case may be, there is no potential for fruitful dialogue with him/her.

Petrus

Ah, yes, more ad hominem attacks and vilification from you and nameless Namesake. I’m still waiting for you to define “ad hominem”, to answer the question about John the Baptist and to adress my arguments. Deprecating my education is irrelevant and another ad hominem attack. Perhaps you have a monumental case of B.O. and your mother wears hobnail boots-IRRELEVANT, IRRELEVANT, IRRELEVANT! At least I am somebody, you two are nameless nobodies whose backgrounds cannot be checked. I notice that Stephen LB has the same problem in getting you to adress the issues or even knowing what you are talking about. You wouldn’t know this but “the refusal to discuss” is another logical fallacy, one of many you apparently know nothing about. You see, to carry on a logical discussion it is necessary to know the principles of sound logical reasoning(of course I’ve never run accross an evolutionist who did). The monumental arrogance of Namesake, worthy of an Eastern Sultan, is something the Bible condemns, do read The Book of Proverbs. Once again I challenge you to answer the question about John the Baptist.

 

[Stephen_LB]

Stephen, this is quite false. See pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/03/ooo-pretty-pict.html

I just did a quick take on that website, and, as I suspected, I found only PZ Myers and his usual fantasies. Once again, you are not engaging in dialogue. At your earlier request, I presented, two specific ID predictions and you promptly ignore the point and send me to an anti-ID website that doesn’t even address the issue. PZ Myers did write a paper a few years ago that, according to him, provided an evolutionary pathway to complexity. As it turns out, he simply made things up to make it work. There was nothing to it. If it had been true, the entire ID movement would have collapsed. Obviously, the paper had no impact, because it had no substance. Translation: no one took it seriously, not even the Darwinbots.

John Davison, the expert evolutionary biologist, recently challenged Myers to a debate. Myers wanted no part of it. I pointed this out to you a hundred posts ago. What is your point in sending me to that credibility-challenged website? Is that your way of saying that you will never engage me in substantive dialogue?

 

[Riada]

Oh! Exalted one! Your wisdom shines like thousand stars illuminating the heavens. This poor, lowly Fundamentalist peasant comes before you as humble as he knows how, like an empty pitcher before your full fountain of knowledge! Actually I have a basic education and I’m going to adress you anyway.
Your problem is that you have no basic education. Logic is as foundational to science as metaphysics is. Clear definition is important to sound reasoning. Most evolutionists like you play fast and loose with definitions. They love to spout irrational statements like religion is based on faith but science is based on facts. All knowledge is based on faith. It is a fact it’s 72 degrees in this room. That is based on reading this themometer, which is based on my faith that the expansion and contraction of mercury correlates with the fluctuations of the temperature in this room, that the universe is governed by physical laws that have and will remain the same. Science came into being in the Western world because Christian theology had the unique idea that the universe was governed by physical laws established by God. Miracles were indeed possible because God was Sovereign over His creation. Whether you believe in God or not both views are equally metaphyical ideas, they are foundational and inescapable. Wake up! Do you think (despite the fact you know nothing about it) that logic is a valid tool for analysing data? Only if there is an intrinsic relationship between logical thinking and reality can logic have any authority. What no evolutionist can answer is why logic should have any validity. Rational intuition in the human mind arose by the happenstance (unexplained) process of evolution(according to them). It’s like an explosion in a boiler factory. So the mind works according to rational intuition, so what? There is no necessessary connection between this and the nature of reality. It’s sort of like Kantianism. Again, metaphysics underlies sound scientific thinking.

Namesake, in the above paragraph you have been ridiculed because your behavior is ridiculous and you have been thoroughly REFUTED. This is why you are reduced to calling me a pig. “Truth crushed to earth shall rise again but error, wounded writhes in pain!” My sympathy for your pain, I hate to see anything suffer! But , of course you have not addressed the issues because “my arguments” are irrefutable. And, of course they are not original with me, they are what any person educated in philosophy and theology would say. Your evolutionism is a form of “anti-rational, gnostic mysticism with a murderous totalitarian political agenda”. On the basis of it, notably Haeckel’s fraudulant drawings of the human embryo Carl Sagan justified murdering helpless babies in the most brutal, inhuman way possible. The body count has risen to over 50 million, at least three times as many as that great fan of evolution, Adolf Hitler killed. Jesus Christ gave us a wonderful plumbline for judging these things “by their fruits ye shall know them”.

 

[Riada]

I just did a quick take on that website, and, as I suspected, I found only PZ Myers and his usual fantasies. Once again, you are not engaging in dialogue. At your earlier request, I presented, two specific ID predictions and you promptly ignore the point and send me to an anti-ID website that doesn’t even address the issue. PZ Myers did write a paper a few years ago that, according to him, provided an evolutionary pathway to complexity. As it turns out, he simply made things up to make it work. There was nothing to it. If it had been true, the entire ID movement would have collapsed. Obviously, the paper had no impact, because it had no substance. Translation: no one took it seriously, not even the Darwinbots.

John Davison, the expert evolutionary biologist, recently challenged Myers to a debate. Myers wanted no part of it. I pointed this out to you a hundred posts ago. What is your point in sending me to that credibility-challenged website? Is that your way of saying that you will never engage me in substantive dialogue?

Alas! Stephen LB, the emperor has no clothes and he really ought to stop running around that way, he will catch his death of cold! Of course metaphorically he has. What evolutionist, true believers, can’t abide is the fact that they can’t sell their bill of goods to the public. Belief in the evolution myth is on the decline in spite of decades of brainwashing of a captive audience in the public schools. On the other hand, Creationism is gaining ground all the time. It has jumped from 42% of the American people to 51% in two years and will soon climb to at least 60%. Creationism’s greatest asset is the utter irrationality, foaming at the mouth fanaticism, hypocrisy and sheer totalitarianism of evolutionists.

 

[drpmjhess]

And, at the moment you begin a theological excursion into science, science leaves the building. Science doesn’t care one whit about theology. Theology cares about science, as it should, but science does just fine without (name removed by moderator)ut from theology.
And I might further comment that both are much more satisfying when they can remain separate.

Namesake, I understand your impetus toward the “two languages model”, keeping theology and science in hermetically sealed separate compartments. However, let me offer a counter argument.

This weekend I’m participating in a marvelous conference on cosmology and theology, with keynote speaker Father George Coyne, retired director of the Vatican Observatory. In his lecture this morning Father Coyne noted that he conducts his stellar cosmology according to the assumptions of methodological naturalism, just as his Jesuit biologist colleagues employ this assumption in their biological work with evolution. Science and religion are thus separate enterprises, and yet it is possible for them mutually to enrich each other, George Coyne and his Jesuit brothers find that their science is quite relevant to their prayer life as priests.

Petrus